Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Open Skies, Closed Minds

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. or at the very least no consensus for deletion. Whether the material should be kept in a separate article or merged elsewhere does not require an AfD. There is no consensus to delete the material especially since one of the delete votes essentially supports a merge. If [[Nick Pope[]] is deleted at some point in the future and this article has been merged, GFDL issues can be dealt with at tat point. StarM 23:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Open Skies, Closed Minds

Nick Pope walled-garden non-notable book. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. —Artw (talk) 07:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but need work. Very notable. It's his autobiography and the UFO version of Spycatcher. Build articles up, expand knowledge, don't tear them down. AWT (talk) 09:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep perfectly notable within its field. Being in a "walled garden" is not grounds for deletion - write some links. Another Science Apologist classic - "I don't believe in it, make it go away". Do some research, SA. Totnesmartin (talk) 11:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please follow WP:CIVIL... and instead of just declaring itnotable you might want to try to give a Wikipedia-specific reason why it would qualify as notable. DreamGuy (talk) 20:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Civil? You can talk. Totnesmartin (talk) 23:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a somewhat pointy nomination. His books are notable, regardless of what subject they're on. - Richard Cavell (talk) 12:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets criteria 5 of WP:NB if nothing else. Raitchison (talk) 15:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, not by a long shot. Nick Pope is not so famous everything he touches is famous by extension. He's not Shakespeare. In fact, it's arguable if he's even notable enough for a Wikipedia article himself. DreamGuy (talk) 20:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Nick Pope. If this book were as notable as the Keep votes assert, the article would have some amount of that in there. Unfortunately, this article is like so many other UFO articles - It's all self-cited, with no outside information, reviews, analysis, assertions of notability. There's one paragraph there, stick it in the author's article. Notability not inherited. ThuranX (talk) 17:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Nick Pope. Inadequate evidence the book itself is notable. Pope is not so notable that any book he writes automatically deserves an encyclopedia article. Edison (talk) 19:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge anything worth saving to the main article, which has massive problems of its own (no reliable sources, etc.). DreamGuy (talk) 20:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I could not find any significant coverage of this book through reliable secondary sources to establish notability. I also oppose a merge as I also support deletion of Nick Pope (in which I have just endorsed its PROD). MuZemike (talk) 21:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added some refs over there, for what it's worth.Artw (talk) 23:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Well known and widely sold book in the UK. Added some reviews, one mentioning UK bestseller status, which should help with notability questions, though more work should be done there. Artw (talk) 23:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Probably the most prominent UFO-related book in the UK, by the UK's best known ufologist. Coverage sufficient to demonstrate notability.--Michig (talk) 09:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect: insufficient 3rd party notability. JamesBurns (talk) 02:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.